• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

why do we need vista, whats wrong with xp

Recommended Posts

Brandon Live    232
I'm sorry, what? Do a search for Peter Guttman. Never heard of SPDIF I take it? HDCP? Vista is the most DRM fulled OS ever made, ever. Take a look over the vendor specifications; you can kiss good-bye to any 3rd party drivers as they now require a specific certificate to work on Vista.

I've hard of Guttman, and read his piece of fiction. Everything he says in there is completely wrong. Vista doesn't require any special "certificates" (I assume you're talking about driver signing) any more than Windows XP does. 64-bit editions of Windows don't allow you to run unsigned drivers in kernel mode, though a lot of people don't seem to understand what that means. For example, Nvidia's unsigned drivers install perfectly fine on Vista x64.

If you haven't actually read Guttman's piece, I suggest you do - but actually think about what he's saying. For example, he claims that Vista will prevent you from listening to SACD content over an S/PDIF connection... on your non-existent SACD drive. Oh right, he forgot to mention that he's full of crap, and no PC can play SACD content, let alone restrict how you play it. It's all garbage, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you're holding off on upgrading because of that pile of rubbish.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can do much more on Windows XP that you will ever be able to do on Vista.

No you can't. There is absolutely nothing DRM-related that you can do on XP that I can't on Vista. If anything, it works the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtk    0
I've heard of Guttman, and read his piece of fiction. Everything he says in there is completely wrong.

That's not true, not everything. I honestly believe that his Name is Peter. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0
There are also a number of benchmarks on the web which show Vista is faster. That is a fact. It's also a fact that Vista is much faster for certain tasks (network access, file copies, starting programs and loading of libraries, etc) and it makes better use of system resources like larger amounts of memory. Some benchmarks are obviously slower with very early video drivers, as the entire display driver model changed and new drivers have been written from scratch (and currently aren't tuned for performance like their XP counterparts). That willl change pretty quickly, though.

Yeah, some applications work a little faster but the vast majority are slower; many professional graphics related programs are up to many times slower. Network access seems to be unchanged in general, file copies are flaky at best and starting programs is no faster than in XP, in fact Vista as a whole starts up much slower from my experience than XP. Maybe that has something to do with the almost three times as many startup processes and dlls.

You just make up all of that. None of that is true. Vista has largely the same DRM support as Windows XP. There are definitely no additional resources being used when you aren't viewing protected content. As for disabling non-HDMI outputs, that's absurd. Vista, just like XP or the Mac, will not output full-quality on non-protected interfaces if the ICT flag is set - but no HD-DVD or BluRay discs currently have it set, so it's kind of a moot point. And definitely not Microsoft's doing. That's the way all BluRay and HD-DVD players work.

Vista has the same DRM support as XP? You've got to be kidding. There is a DRM service always running in Vista, not so in XP. That alone uses up resources and delays startup time right there, plus any additional DRM related apps and dlls because I know that isn't the only leaf to the tree. The whole process is extremely complicated using high level encryption and decryption methods involving software and hardware, you should know that. Are you going to sit there and tell me this doesn't use any cpu cycles or memory address space? Give me a break. Why is it that the system dies if this service is disabled? You convieniently left that bit out. How about all the extra activation, registration, file checking and so on that has been added? It's all garbage that has no other point but to lock down software so that it assures everything is "genuine" and that you can charge more per license and issue more licenses. Anyone that denies these are not good for the consumer is full of crap. How about the latest problem related to this with the "family pack" that issues non working serials to people who payed and are now being told there is no timeframe for a fix so they basically have an expensive cd and box paperweight. It's not enough that you have to increase prices rather than follow something sane like Apple's family model, no...the consumer has to shell out more AND deal with an annoying, lengthly and prone to failure activation process.

Whether or not current HD-DVD and blu-ray disks use the ITC flag does not matter, why do you think that flag exists? DVI, VGA, s-video, SPDIF, 1/8-2/4 inch audio, etc. do not adhere to HDCP conditions and are thus either reduced in quality (despite the fact that you paid for an HD video) or are disabled entirely, that's up to the content distributor. DRM allows you to basically do whatever you want with your product; PPV/U, time expiration, monthly pay service, limitation of devices you can use and yes the possibility of disabling certain hardware, you name it.

Umm, no. DirectX 9 is just as fast or usually faster on Vista (driver permitting)... just look at Battlefield 2 on ATI cards, 15% faster according to those benchmarks yesterday. And that's still on a very early driver.

Halo 2 is a Microsoft game. Sure, there are obviously business reasons to focus it on Vista and DX10. But there are good reasons why that makes sense, including the fact that it's harder to write a game that targets both DX10 and DX9 since they're not compatible, AND the fact that Halo 2 is a showcase game for Xbox Live Anywhere.

DX10 simply can't exist on XP, not without porting back half of Vista - including the Vista driver model and tons more infrastructure that it relies upon. It relies on things like GPU threading and memory virtualization, which are new to the Vista driver model.

Granted the differences are small in general, most games are faster in XP. I'm refering to ATI's drivers which are much furthur along than nvidia's. DX10 is all about doing more for less, ie efficiency, but the fact remains that DX9 is just as capable when it comes to actual visuals. Exactly how is it difficult to run a game that was originally designed with DX8 and has a DX9 path to run on XP? It doesn't matter that DX9 and DX10 are incompatible, that is not my point. My point is the game is perfectly capable of running in XP but you guys are choosing to artificially limit that ability to promote your "games for vista" nonesense. The fact is that Vista supports DX9 and so does XP, therefore there is no reason a game cannot be designed to use both DX9 and DX10 and run on both XP and Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtk    0

mostly sounds like you're choked that it's too much work to pirate now, mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0

Sounds like you haven't the slightest idea or understanding of the conversation but I'll humor you. Vista RTM (all versions) have been available online for free for quite some time. Believe me, this stuff poses no threat to pirates, in fact pirates typically don't have to worry about it because it's all disabled or removed. I personally don't care for Vista because of these reasons and more nor do I want it, free or otherwise.

So please, go away until you have an actual argument worth listening to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
huskerpat    0
mostly sounds like you're choked that it's too much work to pirate now, mostly.

I get the impression that's a lot of the problem with some people. I also think it's unfair to judge it based on benchmarks using very early drivers. It'll take a little time to get really good drivers written for some hardware. A perfect example are nforce 4 motherboards. I'd delay upgrading until Nvidia has better drivers written for it.

Changing to new software is something difficult. I'm having a lot of difficulty getting a lot of engineers in my company to start using our new project management software. We're 5 version and 10 years into it and some of them still insist on using word and excel forms because they fail to see the benefits of change. I have another group that will not use the new version (although they will be forced to in the near future) because they are comfortable with the older versions of the software. This group also fails to see the benefits to the newest version (of which there are many reasons to switch).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Yeah, some applications work a little faster but the vast majority are slower; many professional graphics related programs are up to many times slower. Network access seems to be unchanged in general, file copies are flaky at best and starting programs is no faster than in XP, in fact Vista as a whole starts up much slower from my experience than XP. Maybe that has something to do with the almost three times as many startup processes and dlls.

Network access and file copies are both undeniably faster. There has been so much testing there and the performance improvement is very measurable. Vista's start-up time is also noticeably faster (it's one of the requirements for any build to be released outside the company). Of course, if you have three times as many start-up programs as you said, that is going to slow down your start-up time some.

Vista has the same DRM support as XP? You've got to be kidding. There is a DRM service always running in Vista, not so in XP. That alone uses up resources and delays startup time right there, plus any additional DRM related apps and dlls because I know that isn't the only leaf to the tree. The whole process is extremely complicated using high level encryption and decryption methods involving software and hardware, you should know that. Are you going to sit there and tell me this doesn't use any cpu cycles or memory address space? Give me a break.
What service are you talking about? There is no DRM service... There is the "Software Licensing" service, which I'm pretty sure has an XP counterpart - but that has nothing to do with encryption or decryption, or with your media. It certainly doesn't use any CPU unless something is actively checking the OS's licensing parameters. I believe it's only purpose is to make sure components made for SKUs like Ultimate don't run on lower-end SKUs, for example.

As for DRM, anything you can do in XP you can do in Vista. Plus more. It isn't going to require a single extra CPU cycle or any extra memory usage unless you are playing protected content. If you don't like DRM, don't buy a BluRay disc. It's a pretty simple concept. Don't like DRM? Don't buy any. Couldn't be easier.

Why is it that the system dies if this service is disabled? You convieniently left that bit out.

Huh? That doesn't happen.

How about all the extra activation, registration, file checking and so on that has been added? It's all garbage that has no other point but to lock down software so that it assures everything is "genuine" and that you can charge more per license and issue more licenses. Anyone that denies these are not good for the consumer is full of crap.
How is issuing more licenses a bad thing? That sounds fantastic to me. We work hard on this product and nobody has a right to steal it from us. Microsoft selling more licenses is great for the company and our shareholders, and it helps protect consumers from receiving counterfeit software. There's certainly nothing negative toward consumers about it - unless you're talking about "consumers" who illegaly obtain our software.
How about the latest problem related to this with the "family pack" that issues non working serials to people who payed and are now being told there is no timeframe for a fix so they basically have an expensive cd and box paperweight. It's not enough that you have to increase prices rather than follow something sane like Apple's family model, no...the consumer has to shell out more AND deal with an annoying, lengthly and prone to failure activation process.

What does that have to do with DRM? Clearly the issuing of the wrong keys is a big problem, but that has nothing to do with DRM or Activation. It could happen to any software product that relies on product keys... which is, like, all of them.

Whether or not current HD-DVD and blu-ray disks use the ITC flag does not matter, why do you think that flag exists? DVI, VGA, s-video, SPDIF, 1/8-2/4 inch audio, etc. do not adhere to HDCP conditions and are thus either reduced in quality (despite the fact that you paid for an HD video) or are disabled entirely, that's up to the content distributor.
It does matter - because you're complaining about a hypothetical situation that may never exist. If you're worried about content you buy not playing at full quality, then don't buy content with the ICT set, if any of it ever exists.
DRM allows you to basically do whatever you want with your product; PPV/U, time expiration, monthly pay service, limitation of devices you can use and yes the possibility of disabling certain hardware, you name it.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You don't think companies should be able to offer subscription services? You don't think Pay Per View is a good thing? The whole point of DRM is that it gives content providers and consumers more options. If it weren't for DRM that allowed PPV and subscription services, then video services like Vongo and Unbox couldn't exist. Instead you'd be locked into getting PPV from cable companies and nowhere else. And you'd never be able to use it on your PC. Look at how much the cable companies are trying to cripple CableCard and lock you into their boxes? Our only hope for getting quality high-def programming is to develop models that let us go around the cable companies, and that means services like Unbox or upcoming IPTV offerings.

DRM itself isn't a bad thing. Companies that use it to lock-in customers against their competitors (Apple) is bad. Companies/industries that use it to cripple their customers ability to rightfully make use of the services the pay for is a bad thing (CableCard). I own an HD-DVD player (xbox 360), but it doesn't currently support HDMI/HDCP. So if anyone starts releasing discs with ICT set, I won't buy them. I think ICT is the stupidest idea they could have dreamed up and will only encourage piracy.

But I love my subscription music services, like Urge and Zune. I think it's a fantastic deal and I want to see them invest more into things like that. Subscription movie services are starting to pop up too, and I'm hopeful that soon I'll be able to drop Comcast altogether when IPTV and/or online TV+movie subscriptions are available.

Fortunately, if you don't want to use those services, you don't have to. If all you want to do in Vista is play the same formats you played on XP - then nothing will change. No DRM is happening if you play your Divx or MPEG files. Your MP3s won't stop working. And you can rest assured that nothing in Vista is "wasting" your CPU cycles for the DRM support that you aren't using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obsolete_power    0

Very few people actually NEED it. It is a matter of want here rather than need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    13,027
Why do we need XP? What's wrong with Windows 95? Windows 3.11?

Can you say Windows 9x

Please do not compare windows XP to any windows operating system before it, except for 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0
Network access and file copies are both undeniably faster. There has been so much testing there and the performance improvement is very measurable. Vista's start-up time is also noticeably faster (it's one of the requirements for any build to be released outside the company). Of course, if you have three times as many start-up programs as you said, that is going to slow down your start-up time some.

Not according to some people who have complained about extremely slow file copying and transfers, maybe a bug I don't know but I do know that it does not seem any faster from my own experience. Vista's startup time is not faster. When I said nearly three times as many startup processes I meant after a clean install compared to XP with no additional programs installed.

What service are you talking about? There is no DRM service... There is the "Software Licensing" service, which I'm pretty sure has an XP counterpart - but that has nothing to do with encryption or decryption, or with your media. It certainly doesn't use any CPU unless something is actively checking the OS's licensing parameters. I believe it's only purpose is to make sure components made for SKUs like Ultimate don't run on lower-end SKUs, for example.
I don't recall off hand the name of service since I do not have access to a computer running Vista atm but I do know it was some sort of verification and DRM service as listed in the description. When I disabled it explorer would hang for literally half a minute if I attempted to open or navigate through any file or folder. As soon as I started it up again the system returned to normal. It is part of the large increase in startup processes and therefore does make a difference, along with a ton other other unnecessary processes and services.
As for DRM, anything you can do in XP you can do in Vista. Plus more. It isn't going to require a single extra CPU cycle or any extra memory usage unless you are playing protected content. If you don't like DRM, don't buy a BluRay disc. It's a pretty simple concept. Don't like DRM? Don't buy any. Couldn't be easier.

Oh I don't plan to, the problem is that everything is going DRM now. So I either have to put up with it and shell out more money or give up most forms of media and software. Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

How is issuing more licenses a bad thing? That sounds fantastic to me. We work hard on this product and nobody has a right to steal it from us. Microsoft selling more licenses is great for the company and our shareholders, and it helps protect consumers from receiving counterfeit software. There's certainly nothing negative toward consumers about it - unless you're talking about "consumers" who illegaly obtain our software.

What does that have to do with DRM? Clearly the issuing of the wrong keys is a big problem, but that has nothing to do with DRM or Activation. It could happen to any software product that relies on product keys... which is, like, all of them.

Sure it sounds fantastic to you and Microsoft, it means more profit at the expense of the consumer. I'm all for people making money off of what they create but there is such a thing as going too far and having the monopoly that Microsoft does it can basically charge whatever it wants. Prices keep increasing with every new product release and more variations of those products keep being created as an excuse for those price increases. Honestly, do you really believe Vista Ultimate is anything else but a reason to increase the price of the os to $400 so the company can remove features and create lower versions at somewhat reduced prices. It's not like it costs Microsoft anything extra to include Ultimate's features into Home Premium or any of the others. In fact, it doesn't cost Microsoft anything but a few bucks for the packaging per "license" which equates to something like a 95% profit per OS sold. Software isn't like material goods which cost money for the material, labor and manufacturing plant. Software instead get's stored on a server somewhere and burned on a CD that costs $0.05 a piece in bulk or downloaded from a server where the only costs are maintenance and internet service, which compared to the prices Vista is going for are eclipsed in a short period of time. For XP there were two basic versions, Home and Pro (MCE was just Pro with a more advanced Media player) now there are suddenly five versions at ever increasing prices. Do we really need five versions?

Yet Microsoft doesn't seem to understand why people pirate. People don't want to spend $600 or more for two or three family computers and they don't want a crippled OS like Starter Edition that isn't worth it's price. So what does Microsoft do to address these concerns, oh let's just add a ton more activation, WGA, keys, etc. and limit the consumer's rights furthur to force them to our will. How dare they want fare use and pricing. Microsoft didn't make it's billions through fair business, how do you think the company maintains it's huge net worth? "Protection from pirated software"? What a joke. The pirates aren't swindling the people of their money at $1.66 a piece, Microsoft is at $400, WGA and activation is only to make sure MS is making as much as it can. Doesn't matter whether the OS a person is running is pirated or not, the software is more or less identical, the only difference being that Microsoft didn't make a ton of money off it. So please, don't try to argue the "genuine" nonesense, as that is all it is, a marketing ploy to try and make the unknowing public think their copy is somehow a knockoff when it isn't.

It does matter - because you're complaining about a hypothetical situation that may never exist. If you're worried about content you buy not playing at full quality, then don't buy content with the ICT set, if any of it ever exists.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You don't think companies should be able to offer subscription services? You don't think Pay Per View is a good thing? The whole point of DRM is that it gives content providers and consumers more options. If it weren't for DRM that allowed PPV and subscription services, then video services like Vongo and Unbox couldn't exist. Instead you'd be locked into getting PPV from cable companies and nowhere else. And you'd never be able to use it on your PC. Look at how much the cable companies are trying to cripple CableCard and lock you into their boxes? Our only hope for getting quality high-def programming is to develop models that let us go around the cable companies, and that means services like Unbox or upcoming IPTV offerings.

DRM itself isn't a bad thing. Companies that use it to lock-in customers against their competitors (Apple) is bad. Companies/industries that use it to cripple their customers ability to rightfully make use of the services the pay for is a bad thing (CableCard). I own an HD-DVD player (xbox 360), but it doesn't currently support HDMI/HDCP. So if anyone starts releasing discs with ICT set, I won't buy them. I think ICT is the stupidest idea they could have dreamed up and will only encourage piracy.

It isn't hypothetical, anyone who thinks all this technology that is being developed and incorporated won't be put to use is sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the facts. It is a bad thing, why? Because I don't like being told what I can and cannot do with what I payed for. I don't like being told that I can only listen to my music on one device, I don't like being told that I can only listen to the music on one player and I don't like being told that the price I have been paying is no longer sufficient unless I want to watch, use or listen to it for a limited time or pay up. I don't like being treated like a criminal when I'm the one supporting the company by buying their products. The irony in it all is that they say they are doing this to stop pirates but the fact is it doesn't stop them and it never will short of full control. No, the real reason is because it leads to more abilities for the makers to do what they want when they and that thus increases profit from the general public who account for 90+% of the customers.

Edited by ANova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mycoolkim    29

I went from

Windows 95 > Windows 98 > Windows 98se > Windows Millenium > Windows 2000 > Windows XP Professional

and i have tested Windows Vista, but i wont use it as a primary source of an OS. I have also use a couple of Linux distros, and tried out OSX Panther and OSX Tiger, currently iam thinking of moving from XP Professional to Tiger. I want something new, not a different Visual Design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aahz    0

Honestly, if people don't know by now to tweak an OS after they install it and remove/disable all the crap they'll never use then there's just no hope for them.

Vista runs slower than XP? Really? Runs exactly the same for me and faster in some places. Are people just leaving everything running and eating their resources?

The only real place I've seen any kind of performance dip is in GPU drivers...switched back to the non-Vista ones and everything is back to XP speed while I wait for actual good Vista drivers.

A lot of these benchmarks seem to be of default installs of XP and Vista and then they proceed to test games on them. Doesn't every gamer worth their salt tweak their clean install of a new OS ASAP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0

Even after tweaking Vista it still has twice as many startup processes as a tweaked XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtk    0
I'd delay upgrading until Nvidia has better drivers written for it.

Better yet, wake nvidia up by going with ATI, who have done a significantly better job of supporting their products. I've sealed my decision to drop creative from my hardware purchases as well.

Changing to new software is something difficult. I'm having a lot of difficulty getting a lot of engineers in my company to start using our new project management software. We're 5 version and 10 years into it and some of them still insist on using word and excel forms because they fail to see the benefits of change. I have another group that will not use the new version (although they will be forced to in the near future) because they are comfortable with the older versions of the software. This group also fails to see the benefits to the newest version (of which there are many reasons to switch).

I've an accountant that runs his entire department off excel spreadsheets, HUGE spreadsheets. Granted, the guy's an excel god, but it just doesn't scale. He's got 80+MB files that do incredible things at a snail's pace fraught with potential for disaster.

Eventually I'll start gently pushing him towards replacing them, a few near misses should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Software isn't like material goods which cost money for the material, labor and manufacturing plant. Software instead get's stored on a server somewhere and burned on a CD that costs $0.05 a piece in bulk or downloaded from a server where the only costs are maintenance and internet service, which compared to the prices Vista is going for are eclipsed in a short period of time.

That's like saying it costs $1 to make a big hollywood movie. It's positively absurd. Yeah, the marginal cost on additional copies of the software is pretty miniscule. But that's not what you're paying for. You're paying for years and years of work, R&D, as well as on-going support (from warranty, to tech support, to security and functionality updates).

Sure, stamping out another disc is cheap. But making that first disc might cost a billion dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtk    0
Sounds like you haven't the slightest idea or understanding of the conversation but I'll humor you. Vista RTM (all versions) have been available online for free for quite some time. Believe me, this stuff poses no threat to pirates, in fact pirates typically don't have to worry about it because it's all disabled or removed. I personally don't care for Vista because of these reasons and more nor do I want it, free or otherwise.

So please, go away until you have an actual argument worth listening to.

Oh sure I do, no need to humor me. I've been reading Geist for a long time as well.

Your entire argument is misdirected, even Michael says it's at the behest of Hollywood. If you've got a problem with DRM and rights restrictions, you need to take it up with the US government.

As for how freely available Vista is, great marketing, isn't it. The hardcore will always have it if they want it, Microsoft HAS to increasingly try to protect itself from piracy, knowing full well they can't win. The enthusiast community is such an incredibly small percentage of the user base that it just doesn't pay to even try to make it rock solid.

More often than not though, it's the same vista-lite L33t H@x0r that's back here complaining about broken functionality.

Cutting off the casual copiers was bound to annoy a small but vocal group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ently    81

rofl.. people ask for more features, so Microsoft implements them, then they complain its too bloated/system hoggish/too many processes

Also, i bet you at LEAST! 90% of the people who say "omfg Vista is so slow, Vista is horrible im going to use linux instead omg Vista etc etc" will be using Vista within the next 2 years. Same thing happened with XP same thing will happen with Vista, history does repeat itself.

Vista is better than XP.. im sorry to burst your bubble but the proof is there.. am i using Vista ? of course not, im going to wait for more releases on it before i switch but still i know the simple fact that Vista is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrCobra    0
Honestly, do you really believe Vista Ultimate is anything else but a reason to increase the price of the os to $400 so the company can remove features and create lower versions at somewhat reduced prices.

I agree very much with that. However...

It's not like it costs Microsoft anything extra to include Ultimate's features into Home Premium or any of the others. In fact, it doesn't cost Microsoft anything but a few bucks for the packaging per "license" which equates to something like a 95% profit per OS sold.

They may make 95% profit per OS sold on packaging & distribution but you are delusional to think it's 95% across the board. Even if they sold the OS at $1 a license they'd have to sell over 5 billion copies to break even.

Software isn't like material goods which cost money for the material, labor and manufacturing plant.

Uhm, software requires people to create it just like anything else that's made. The people who spend long hours writing that software deserve to be paid for their time. The material required to create the software are the computers on which it is written - the labor is from the programmers - and once the initial software is finished it does need to go to manufacturing to be mass produced.

I don't really like Vista as a whole, you can read any post I write about it to see that, but you're compalining that they don't deserve to be paid for creating it. If you have a problem with the cost then complain about it by voting with your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0
That's like saying it costs $1 to make a big hollywood movie. It's positively absurd. Yeah, the marginal cost on additional copies of the software is pretty miniscule. But that's not what you're paying for. You're paying for years and years of work, R&D, as well as on-going support (from warranty, to tech support, to security and functionality updates).

Sure, stamping out another disc is cheap. But making that first disc might cost a billion dollars.

I take R&D into account, that still doesn't change the fact that you guys make alot of money per license sold. Once that R&D cost is covered the rest is pure profit. It's not exactly the consumer's fault you guys screwed up and had to restart the project either, which took an extra 2 years to finish while wasting alot of money in the process.

It can cost in the hundreds of millions to make a movie, however they often make at least that much back in sales and often a decent amount more if it's at all successful and up to many times what it cost when those movies are released on DVDs, etc. Sorry if I don't exactly feel sorry for them or Microsoft and it's multiple billions.

As for how freely available Vista is, great marketing, isn't it. The hardcore will always have it if they want it, Microsoft HAS to increasingly try to protect itself from piracy, knowing full well they can't win. The enthusiast community is such an incredibly small percentage of the user base that it just doesn't pay to even try to make it rock solid.

More often than not though, it's the same vista-lite L33t H@x0r that's back here complaining about broken functionality.

Are you even bothering to read any of what I have written? The extra software lockdown in Vista is only one pet peave of mine. On that topic, you're points are contradictory and signify exactly my point, if the enthusiast community is so small and they primarily account for the majority of pirates, why is Microsoft wasting all their time and money incorporating anti-piracy aspects to try (and fail) to block out such a small portion of that user base? Those who want to pirate it will, despite how ever many projects MS tries to incorporate to stop it. The real people being treated as pirates are the people who support them by buying their products. I already talked about all this, maybe you should go back and re-read my points.
Uhm, software requires people to create it just like anything else that's made. The people who spend long hours writing that software deserve to be paid for their time. The material required to create the software are the computers on which it is written - the labor is from the programmers - and once the initial software is finished it does need to go to manufacturing to be mass produced.

Agreed, see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McoreD    20
Why do we need vista, whats wrong with xp. Personally I dont think there is anything wrong with xp ,ms could have improved xp instead of making a whole new operating system. Whats after vista and will ms copy apple. I am sure by now most people are happy and used to xp.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...100reasons.mspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andy2004    1

going back to whats wrong with xp , now that ive had a few days with vista theres 2 things i notice straight away

I run dual monitor at 1680 by 1050 on each one. Now if i maximize internet explorer window to occupy one of the monitors, then on the main neowin page, if i scroll over the tabs (forums etc) then there is a notcieable on screen lag between the tabs. In vista an ie7 i dont get that at all. ANother thing as well in wmp11 if i maximize the screen and have a visualisation such as strawberryaid playing it runs really smooth in vista but in xp it lags to heck. Ive not made any hardware changes at all but vista handles alot better than xp ever did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ElectricDemon    0

I've just got my vista installed in VMWare right now until I've learned how everything fits together and what's changed.. Next time I'm reinstalling windows on my pc I'm going to make the final switch. Vista so far seems really nippy (even in VMWare), it's just the lack of driver support that's probably holding me back from installing it right away.

It was the same story with XP, when I battled with switching from ME to 2K for a while, before ditching it all and going XP after a few months. It's just that with Vista right now there's a bigger gamble involved with regards to backwards compatibility and driver/hardware support.

I'll keep toying with it until one day I'll switch permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rtk    0
I take R&D into account, that still doesn't change the fact that you guys make alot of money per license sold. Once that R&D cost is covered the rest is pure profit.

Ok, this is becoming a troll.... Been in the business world long? What exactly are you suggesting? That they should try to divine the eventual volume sold and only charge enough to cover R&D and a modest cost of living increase?

It's not exactly the consumer's fault you guys screwed up and had to restart the project either, which took an extra 2 years to finish while wasting alot of money in the process.
What ARE you talking about?!?! My Honda should cost a LOT less, if they didn't build concept cars and participate in the professional circuits? Of course, We'd all be driving Ford Model T 2007 editions then...

Message to all engineers and developers. Please ensure that you are 100% sure of anything you attempt, or ANova will want it to cost you personally.

On that topic, you're points are contradictory and signify exactly my point, if the enthusiast community is so small and they primarily account for the majority of pirates, why is Microsoft wasting all their time and money incorporating anti-piracy aspects to try (and fail) to block out such a small portion of that user base?

Last I heard, 1/4 of all windows installs are pirated. 25%! What accountant wouldn't look at that and say, why NOT spend a billion to try and recover a portion of 10's of billions? What portion of that 25% is casual copying?

Convenience stores stores are robbed all the time, therefore, they should just give up trying to keep their profits and just leave the cash registers unlocked and unsupervised?

I still say, it mostly sounds like you're choked that it's too much work to pirate now, mostly.

Those who want to pirate it will, despite how ever many projects MS tries to incorporate to stop it. The real people being treated as pirates are the people who support them by buying their products.

The % of pirate installs will be smaller on Vista. The casual copiers, and those that profit off that market, will be outed at the next windows update. Don't like spending the time and energy battling MS? Buy it or move to a free OS.

Edit: Please check your quotes. You responded to three different people, but attributed all to Brandon. Nobody likes to be accused of saying something they didn't.

Edited by rtk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANova    0
Ok, this is becoming a troll.... Been in the business world long? What exactly are you suggesting? That they should try to divine the eventual volume sold and only charge enough to cover R&D and a modest cost of living increase?

Yes go throw around the troll word, used often by someone who doesn't like the opinions of others. My points are obviously being ignored by you and I don't think anything I say will change that.

What ARE you talking about?!?! My Honda should cost a LOT less, if they didn't build concept cars and participate in the professional circuits? Of course, We'd all be driving Ford Model T 2007 editions then...
Irrelevant to the argument and not a valid comparison, as is the rest of it. 25% was a figure directly from Microsoft, much of which was sensationalized and incorrect.
Edit: Please check your quotes. You responded to three different people, but attributed all to Brandon. Nobody likes to be accused of saying something they didn't.

No one is throwing accusations around, if you read the quote (which you have to do to understand the response) you'll know who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.